Quote:
Originally Posted by pottymouth
I shoot a bow, a compound bow and a traditional bow have the same fundementals and basic structure to each other, much like a musket and a rifle do. A Xbow bow is a hybred, that's a down grade from a rifle, related to a rifle, not a bow.
I would be very intrested how I'm making an argument against compounds, when technically they are the same. Xbows are nothing like either, but I'm willing to hear you out!
|
Would you agree that there is a % of the archery population that feel that compound bows and traditional bows are nowhere near the same thing? I have no idea what that percentage is but I'm sure there are plenty that think that way. I see the arguement on here all the time that aboriginals want to continue their year round hunting they should do so with a stick and string. No compounds or rifles.
To me, outside of the string technological advancements leave very little that is similar. Limbs, cams, letoff etc.
I was really saying that all your arguments could have been twisted a number of years ago to make an arguement against compund bows. Answer this question for me. What would your response be to those that say that Compound bows due to the technoloical advancements should not be considered archery? Afterall if it were not for compound bows there is a large % of the archery popoulation that would not be competent enough to take animals with true stick and string.
I don't have the will to debate it further, I just think X numbers of years ago traditionals bow hunters might have been saying similar things about compounds.